181–190 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol. The fourth amendment went out the window with the Patriot act and the Freedom act. The fourth amendment does not matter anymore and nobody gives a shit. It's not like an 'important' amendment. I mean it's not the second amendment, otherwise there would be huge lobbying groups up in arms (no pun intended).
This is an incredibly un-helpful comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does suggest, however, that a slippery-slope argument of "More surveillance plunges us immediately into a 1984-esque dystopia" has a big [citation needed] banner hovering over it though.
I feel we are already in a 1984 Style Surveillance state they are just better at hiding it then the book's government So no I do not think it is "slippery slope" at all, we have already slide down the slope; arriving at the bottom. We long ago surpassed the level of government surveillance I believe is ethical, constitutional, or proper for government if the government having a database filled with everyone Bio metri…
They are NOT selling a service that identifies people from data sets other than the police's supplied data sets. It is not inappropriate for police to be able to determine who they are interacting with if that person is a known criminal. The cat is out of the bag and is already something the police could do themselves. The real fear is when they are able to source commercially available information from linked in, fa…
It feels equivalent to auto-identifying license plates.
They are NOT selling a service that identifies people from data sets other than the police's supplied data sets. It is not inappropriate for police to be able to determine who they are interacting with if that person is a known criminal. The cat is out of the bag and is already something the police could do themselves. The real fear is when they are able to source commercially available information from linked in, fa…
I would counter that you don't need machine facial recognition for known criminals. They're already known.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how will you feel when they start arresting serial jaywalkers?
They already wrongly ticket people at stop lights, it's a racket. They could just mail you a ticket for very small petty "crimes," like not throwing something in the right bin, jay walking, etc. Do people really think police will only use this to solve crime? Solving crimes doesn't pay the bills. Ticketing people does. Then they could also use the facial recognition to get everyone that's at a protest of the governme…
The only viable counter I have managed to imagine so far (for the US) against automated facial recognition is to develop a new, serious religion that always wears identity-concealing veils, masks, and costumes in public places. It has to be a religious value, because otherwise, state-by-state anti-mask laws may be employed. This may be easily justified as an expression of egalitarian non-discrimination. If one cannot immediately identify someone as a member of an out-group, such as by their facial features or skin color, it is more difficult to treat them differently from a member of an in-group. It's harder to be racist if you don't know what races other people are. So adherents might also be required to wear gloves and concealing clothing, or full-body coverings like "morph suits". Fursuit cosplayers are likely to be political allies.
If you are worried about automatic ID, you should find out whether your state is a stop-and-identify state, and if so, work to have those repealed, along with any anti-mask laws. The presumption of innocence goes hand-in-hand with the right to pseudo-anonymity in public. If you aren't doing anything criminal, nobody needs to be identifying you. Sometimes, I even prefer not to be identifiable to my friends--maybe I just want to get some groceries without having to stop and talk to anybody.
All these technologies should be used first on cops and government officials, to ensure they are upright, before being used on anyone else. Qui custodiet custodes applies. It is too dangerous to be used by anyone who is not provably trustworthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reasonable people can disagree on the definition of "unreasonable," however. Is it "unreasonable" for the Amber Alert system to co-opt the eyes and attention of ten thousand citizens around a kidnapped child? Hard to say. Most people seem to think 'no.' If that system could co-opt camera feeds instead of human attention, we could get most (all?) of the benefits of the existing Amber Alert without having to burn civil…
I definitely feel like we're missing positive opportunities for mass surveillance. Things like being able to recognize someone in cardiac arrest, or who is at risk for a stroke. Someday mass surveillance will help as much as it hurts society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel we are already in a 1984 Style Surveillance state they are just better at hiding it then the book's government So no I do not think it is "slippery slope" at all, we have already slide down the slope; arriving at the bottom. We long ago surpassed the level of government surveillance I believe is ethical, constitutional, or proper for government if the government having a database filled with everyone Bio metri…
In 1984 they had audio/video monitoring inside every home. Today governments only have such monitoring in select public areas. That's a significant distinction.
Keep believing the government has no access to this data..
They are NOT selling a service that identifies people from data sets other than the police's supplied data sets. It is not inappropriate for police to be able to determine who they are interacting with if that person is a known criminal. The cat is out of the bag and is already something the police could do themselves. The real fear is when they are able to source commercially available information from linked in, fa…
> It is not inappropriate for police to be able to determine who they are interacting with if that person is a known criminal. Everyone is a criminal. You commit multiple crimes a day if you're like most people. There absolutely should be a clear delineation between what is possible and what is allowed when considering state surveillance. The 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, hous…
By analogy, if a police officer has an excellent facial memory and they recognize someone, can they use their memory to influence their actions towards the person?
Why? The surveillance is there. I used this with some personal video surveillance to identify some thieves who were casing driveways to find cars to get into. Instead of wasting hours looking at footage, I was able to give the police excerpts that helped them identify the perp. Also, because of the circumstances and footage, they were able to charge him with a more serious crime than petit larceny, which means he won…
Because the advancement of technology changes the impact of certain classes of surveillance and tracking. Existing law is based on a balance that no longer exists. Bruce Schneier has a nice essay on this and license plates: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2007/01/on_police_s... In short, having a unique id and database of car owners may be okay when the police need to manually look up information. But when t…
My point isn’t that pervasive surveillance is great. It’s that if you’re allowed to have cameras everywhere, why would you limit useful processing of the data?
How do you regulate it? If you can’t hire Amazon to do LPR or facial recognition, can you pay a guy to recognize people walking down the street and note their patterns? Do you license/permit camera placement?